Utopia and Reality

Transcriber's note: This is Supek's opening speech on 1971 Korčula Summer School, organized by the Zagreb philosophical bimonthly "Praxis". Supek's opening speech and a number of reports were published
in the No. 1-2 issue of Praxis (January-April 1972).

“Utopia And Reality” – two notions which can leave one completely
indifferent if Utopia is imagined as a vision of a very distant future
or as a dream which transcends reality, if we take Utopia as a subject
of the imagination and speculation without any connection with reality
or even without any possibility of being involved in reality. [The
notions also leave one indifferent] if we take reality as something
firm and permanent, something which follows a certain inertia, deprived
of all possibilities and efforts designed to make the impossible
possible, and then to turn the possible into reality.

As soon as a creative act is involved, there is the human tendency
toward change and transformation [and] these two notions begin their
mutual relationship, to condition and check each other. Their
relationship could grow to a passionate interdependence and dramatic
activity especially if a revolutionary action is involved. In that
moment we begin to measure reality by [ideas of] utopia, while utopia
begins to merge with reality: things which seemed to us
incomprehensible attain the highest sense of existence.

By passing through the hours of the revolutionary transformation of
society and by sharing the longing for radical changes in reality, we
become conscious of a number of contradictions provoked by
revolutionary actions in the fields of history, social organization and
human relationships. These are the contradictions which have been
especially provoked by the confrontation of reality and Utopia, by a
confrontation between a present still under the command of the past and
inertia, and the future which is strolling between the possible" and
the impossible.

So long as the revolutionary action is in full swing, Utopia comes
closer to reality, and impossible things appear within reach of the
possible. However, when the revolutionary swing begins to weaken,
Utopia gradually separates itself from reality and disappears from the
horizon. We are then confronted with a road which we believed we
already passed. When the revolutionary action is in full swing, then a
man is the closest to another man, inhuman things are abandoned as
inimical ones, "I" begins to merge with "We," and personal desires with
collective strivings. To a certain extent the mediation between the
freedom of an individual and the freedom of another individual by means
of "just," "democratic," "legal" institutions seems superficial. The
spontaneity is at its peak. However, when the revolutionary swing
begins to decline, men begin to drift apart, group interests come again
to the surface, definite social structures become visible: things which
were dynamic and explosive retreat before static and petrified things.
The relationships among people turn into relationships of power while
the revolutionary vanguards
become ruling oligarchies. How [can we] preserve the spontaneity of the
movement, freedom of social identification, the nearness of ideals, and
other things?

At this point we meet the contradiction between political
pragmatism, which claims to possess a sense of reality, to take into
account "historical conditions," to adapt the political action to the
demands of concrete and "objective situations" on the one hand, and on
the other the revolutionary humanism which derives virtue and strength
from Utopia, [which is] in harmony with revolutionary means and
revolutionary aims, which believes that the construction of social
consciousness is more important than the construction of the social
basis, which places human relationships before various institutions and
constitutions. This contradiction might become a permanent and fruitful
dialogue between the real and the Utopian. What is bad in this
contradiction is the moment when political pragmatism wishes to
integrate Utopia into its own daily and temporary practice, when it
tends to become the sole judge designed to appraise the nature of all
ideals and Utopian strivings, and when it begins to identify the
existing reality with a picture of the future or its individual actions
with the true movement of history. In this way it not only monopolizes
political actions or [monopolizes] a stage of the revolutionary
movement, but it also designates the sense and interpretation of the
realization of socialist society. That is, [it monopolizes] things
which belong to all people and society, in other words – free
engagement and association. In such a case the transformation of a
society and people, of their relationships, is implemented by means of
decrees, coercion and illusions, rather than by means of their
consciousness and free volition. The realization of the liberation of
people is attempted only by political means: the "political soul"
begins to devour, as Marx warned, the "social soul", of the socialist
revolution. In such a case we can talk about a mystification of the
social consciousness and about an enslaved Utopia.

True, dogmatism has attempted to bureaucratize utopia: by means of
decrees it has established which stage of socialism has been realized
and even claimed that socialism was "constructed" and that it is now on
its way "from socialism to communism." In so doing dogmatism did not
even need to ask for advice from the people or from specialists. A
group of power-holders has proclaimed all this from "above" in the same
way as Moses gave commandments to his people. We wonder whether the
"utopian consciousness" does not go hand in hand with such acts of
proclamation as displayed in the Old Testament or with the decisions
made by the prophets? We are rather inclined to believe that in question here is
a kind of "enlightened absolutism" which cannot act without the
pressure of the state apparatus. This is how we touch well-known
problems which have thus far been very much discussed, namely the "wise
leaders" of the revolutionary movement and socialist democracy. It is
necessary to warn that the bureaucratization of Utopia conditions a
special kind of "charismatic authority" in socialism, which appears as
a form of decadency in the socialist revolution. [Charismatic
authority] is perhaps even an inevitable consequence of a revolutionary
stir and can be only partially prevented through a condemnation of the
"personality cult." This is why we think that the Utopian elements in
the revolutionary movement must remain deeply connected with its
spontaneity and democracy, as well as resistant to all attempts by the
authorities to make of it its own servant.

The bureaucratization of Utopia has brought about the identification
of socialism with the limits of the power of the ruling political class
and because of that only that socialism is proclaimed "true" and
"correct" which exists within the limits of its power. In the areas in
which its power ends, for instance in other socialist countries which
also develop socialism, it is considered that socialism there is not
"correct," and is even condemned as "revisionistic" or as a "betrayal
of socialism." We wonder again whether this intolerant and
quasi-religious mentality of the ruling socialist bureaucrats, this
production of solely "true believers" or heretical movements and their
anathematization, whether all this represents an element of the Utopian
consciousness or not? Is it riot a natural consequence of the already
mentioned fact that the monopolization of the socialist revolution has
based its legitimacy on the Utopian section of its consciousness? [And
because of such a claim to legitimacy] the ruling group makes efforts
to legalize its actions in the name "of a socialist revolution" which
is "historically and objectively" represented only by that group.

In any case this situation has become unmentionable. Even the
contradiction itself, which has been the subject of so many
speculations concerning the identity between the "subjectivity" of the
revolutionary movement (i.e., of its vanguard) and the "objectivity" of
its historical realization, begins to decay precisely because of
certain necessities which stem from the very historical development of
the socialist society. First of all, we should recall that the
socialist, or more concretely the communist, movement started from a
generally recognized principle: every national movement has the right
to its own road to socialism, i.e., pluralism in the realization of
socialism [was a] consistently defended [principle] which is obviously
in strong contradiction to the already mentioned attempts designed to
retain a monopoly over "the only correct road to socialism." Today it
is difficult to deny that a Soviet type of socialism exists, that a
Chinese socialism, a Cuban or a Yugoslav socialism exists. (The word
"socialism" is not used here as a term for a socialism already
realized, but rather as a denotation that these countries have passed
through a socialist revolution!) It is therefore impossible not to make
comparisons between individual socialist countries, regardless of the
fact that these countries exclude each other by means of "political
dialectics." By making comparisons, however, we are compelled to employ
an objective criterion, to create a position from which political
voluntarism and subjectivism would be excluded; in this way the
very act of comparison would enable us to free the captured vision of
the future, that bureaucratized ideal, that degraded Utopia, [the
Utopia] which is as necessary as bread if one really wants to achieve
socialism. The claims made by the ruling bureaucracies that their
practices represent "the objective laws of historical development"
would in this way receive their real meaning, i.e., they would appear
as a naive mystification of a difficult historical birth, with the
cradle of the newly-born child turning into the bedstead of Procreates.

The recognition of the plurality of the roads leading to socialism,
along with the creation of an objective criterion concerning socialist
development, would again permit that critical and rational spirit to
affirm itself, that spirit which is alone capable of linking the
possible with the necessary, and utopia with reality. This spirit is
only capable of introducing within the Marxist way of thinking that
sharpness and vision which – under the conditions of an
ever-increasing complexity of social development – could turn a
definite vision of the future into the strongest weapon of
revolutionary action. Such action has been completely paralyzed by
dogmatic obscurantism and left to the mercy of the "wise leadership."

This means that Marxism must be returned to its real origins, must
be put within everyone's reach. There can be neither a socialist
revolution nor any socialist achievements, no true transformation of
society, without free engagement, without a free connection between
reality and Utopia. To place Utopia at everyone's reach means to create
a mass movement, to give it the form of a real collective will of the
spontaneous transformation of human relationships.

While discussing all this I would like to warn that frequently we
meet a type of [politically] engaged individual who makes efforts to
prevent any approximation of Utopia and reality. [We meet] individuals who have been trying to present
socialist reality as a distant and indefinite future. For such people
Utopia is a form of intellectual escape from reality. Therefore they
take that form of socialism which is the least suitable for any
critical analysis or direct participation in a concrete society.
Recently a prominent philosopher was asked where, in his opinion, one
can find real socialism, and he answered "in China." The next question
was what he knew of socialism in China, and he answered: "Very little!"
Does not this attitude reveal a wish to escape from our own reality,
the European reality'; Certainly [the European reality] is for us an
object of direct action regardless of the question of to what extent
and according to which existing socialist model we are obliged to look
for the possibilities and dilemmas of the transformation of this
socialist reality. Do we have the right permanently to maintain
undefined, indefinite, distant and abstract relationships between the
"socialist reality" and "socialist Utopia?" Do we not live within an
historical reality, with experience of long-standing, not only in
connection with the capitalist society but also with the socialist one,
which obliges us to resolve contradictions in our own historical area?
Here the contradictions and the prospects of a possible evolution are
the most visible and [are most] suitable for confirmation in a clear
way. Things which form the Utopian section of socialist theory and
practice must become the subject of our thoughts and knowledge. It is
not permissible to neglect the socialist experience in Europe.

Regardless of how contradictory all this sounds, it is precisely our
links with, and inspiration by the Utopian form of the radical will
which obliges us to make critical, analytical, and scholarly research
of the socialist reality. We should here recall Marx' angry abandonment
of Weitling's Utopian prophecies. [Marx said] that "ignorance is of no
use to anybody" in relation to the capitalist reality. Dogmatism and
bureaucratism have today burdened the socialist way of thinking by a
huge inertia, by a pseudo-knowledge and quasi-reality. We cannot remove
this inertia if we do not develop a critical way of thinking, both in
connection with the knowledge which we can acquire by comparative
studies of the existing achievements in socialist countries and by
confrontation of these "achievements" with the worked out vision of the
goal, of the future which these societies would like to achieve.

While speaking about this necessity, I cannot but remember two
thinkers whose messages as Marxist philosophers and engaged people lead
us to critical research of the essential problems concerning our hope
in socialism. These two philosophers are, Gyorgy Lukacs and Lucien
Goldmann. They are both examples of thinkers completely devoted to the
cause of socialism, but inspired by critical thought. For them
[critical thought] meant a permanent confrontation between the real and
the possible, between the necessity and the Utopian; for them this
meant a passionate dialogue between man and his history. Gyorgy Lukacs
in his theoretical deliberations placed the accent on a "possible
consciousness" while Lucien Goldmann, who considered himself a pupil of
Lukacs and his continuer, followed him in the vision of a humanistic
socialism. Lukacs was more directly engaged in the communist movement
and was following the stages, often under pressure, of the socialist
revolution after October [1917] until the present days. Goldmann was
freer, less tied to the discipline of the movement, but they had both
equally striven to give the best parts of their life to the realization
of the socialist vision. I would not dare to judge their contribution
at this time. However, I would like to say that through their death we
lost two most significant persons in contemporary Marxist philosophy
and in the socialist movement. We have lost two men with whom we were
very closely tied: Gyorgy Lukacs and Lucien Goldmann were members of
the Praxis Editorial Council. Lucien Goldmann, in addition, was one of
the most dynamic animators and most precious participants in our
Korcula School. Their death has shocked us deeply because their
disappearance is a great loss for the world which we would like to
create. Please let us give them the honor of one moment of silence as
an honor to our comrades and friends Gyorgy Lukacs and Lucien Goldmann.
Glory to them!